An application of stakeholder theory to advance community participation in tourism planning: the case for engaging immigrants as fringe stakeholders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anahita Khazaeia*, Statia Elliota & Marion Joppeaa School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management, University of Guelph, Guelph, CanadaAnahita Khazaei is a PhD candidate and instructor in the School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management, University of Guelph, Canada. Her research interests include community engagement, tourism planning and sustainability. Anahita has years of experience in strategic planning acquired while she was a management consultant in her native country of Iran.Dr Statia Elliot is an associate professor, and director of the School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management, University of Guelph. She has extensive experience working with Canadian destination marketing organizations, and specializes in research of place image and branding, tourism destination planning and performance. She teaches strategic marketing and tourism, and is chair of the Canadian Chapter of the Travel and Tourism Research Association.Dr Marion Joppe is a professor in the School of Hospitality, Food and Tourism Management, University of Guelph. She obtained her doctorate from the University of Aix-Marseille III, France, in law and economics of tourism in 1983, and specializes in destination planning, development and marketing, and the experiences upon which destinations build. She has extensive private and public sector experience, having worked for financial institutions, tour operators, consulting groups and government, and has published in both North America and Europe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it